Review Reports
- Emmanuel Kojo Ennin Antwi
Reviewer 1: Wilbert Joseph Gobbo Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe structure of the article is good!
The form and the content of the article are good!
The methodology is good! The work is also contextual.
However, there are some minor English mistakes (cf. the attached document)!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The structure of the article is good!
The form and the content of the article are good!
The methodology is good! The work is also contextual.
However, there are some minor English mistakes (cf. the attached document)!
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a compelling argument for the place of ABH, and more so, MTBH in scholarship. It'd be so helpful with a possibility of the method taking a main stage in mainline biblical interpretation from a post-colonial perspective if you could provide a deeper clarity of method of the MTBH. This could help both ministers engage in bible study and students and their professors in the classroom.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a good paper, which has the potential to be improved and published.
Abstract: It may not be correct to say that the early African Bible translations were ‘rushed’. Christaller and his contemporaries were very senior scholars who did exceptionally careful work, for all the faults we may identify with the advantage of hindsight.
It seems unfortunate that an author writing about African hermeneutics should start by defining hermeneutics on the basis of several non-African authors!
It seems strange in a scholarly paper to refer to the words of Jesus and Ezra as assumed historical fact.
Catholic biblical hermeneutics is noticeably absent.
The article seems vague in not giving any clear examples of MTBH in practice. This is the biggest weakness of the paper.
Structure: Out of 16 pages, 4 pages are basic introduction (which seems a bit much) and 4 pages are actually on MTBH (which seems much too little, since the title tells us this is the whole point of the paper).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is good, but there are many errors throughout, which could easily be corrected by a native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding and help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf